SparkFun Electronics Commentsurn:uuid:214d0e4e-f1b1-d287-ce26-ac5b4c9f82492018-02-18T00:19:32-07:00SparkFun ElectronicsIvan747 on Apollo vs. AtmelIvan747urn:uuid:c3025c5d-82f0-600e-51ad-d3b29b17470e2010-06-23T10:08:04-06:00<p>It&rsquo;s even more amazing that we need 6 cores @ 2.4ghz to play a GAME.</p>SmAsH on Apollo vs. AtmelSmAsHurn:uuid:cb2ae249-d3aa-d3d4-64d2-99bfbc7367a92010-01-06T06:05:57-07:00<p>The image links are broken&hellip;</p>Redyns on Apollo vs. AtmelRedynsurn:uuid:dc8aac18-5d0c-0a0b-6722-0a6e71cfdc4a2009-04-02T12:53:04-06:00<p>Yea, fun book, but realise that the Titan 4 was still using less than 1 Mips in the 1990's<br/>
Also note that the Surveyor Landers did the same job, before Apollo, with no computer, just a few timers! (and similar radar, gyros, photocells, rockets, and communications)<br/>
The Surveyor return missions and precision landings were cancelled since Apollo was flying.<br/>
-Gar.</p>stevech on Apollo vs. Atmelstevechurn:uuid:048734b3-5e4e-1c2e-92d8-1ec38c9767ac2009-03-26T13:38:30-06:00<p>I&rsquo;ve found it interesting that NASA permits generic selected laptops on the ISS (Space Station), for non-mission-critical uses. Probably without battery though - safety issue.</p>Robomaniac on Apollo vs. AtmelRobomaniacurn:uuid:e524d6f6-603e-6afc-24f3-1719bf7a075f2009-03-26T09:38:44-06:00<p>You also have to remember that was 15 Millions back in 1965!<br/>
That was worth way more then 15 Millions today!<br/>
I remember my dad telling me that he could buy a hotdog and coke for lesss then 25cents.<br/>
So that is probably equals to 4 times more.</p>jd8001 on Apollo vs. Atmeljd8001urn:uuid:edf466a3-215a-29ad-5cfd-b9f83bd8a3f22009-03-26T08:09:31-06:00<p>I think we should all be a little humbled and embarrassed. 40 years and countless transistor architectures later we have yet to return to the moon; those who accomplished greater things before us would have given their right arm to have the cheapest PIC, ARM, or MSP that many of us can sample for free. As engineers or hobbyist we must dream big! The pride of our species depends on it.</p>Alf2 on Apollo vs. AtmelAlf2urn:uuid:35ae65cc-7f27-db18-8c4f-ff7d134020042009-03-25T16:25:36-06:00<p>yeaa haha that&rsquo;s true AndyL, someone else who dare to reduce the Karnaugh maps of Orion module??</p>AndyL on Apollo vs. AtmelAndyLurn:uuid:56e8bf24-7614-b218-7705-0a930aeb173a2009-03-25T14:35:47-06:00<p>I wonder how this compares to whatever computers that are planned for Orion 15.</p>septer012 on Apollo vs. Atmelsepter012urn:uuid:a6f22902-83bd-01f2-4a09-b6a83b13a2852009-03-25T13:19:16-06:00<p>I seriously doubt they used a Karnaugh Map to reduce a logic design of that magnitude, I bet they used Quine?McCluskey Method.</p>viliam on Apollo vs. Atmelviliamurn:uuid:7113d283-8845-db26-90fc-17fe7dbf5c152009-03-24T20:06:59-06:00<p>For those who have 2 hours, here is a FREE MIT lecture on the shuttle guidance, navigation and control: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OksC02Xqe7Q&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=35721A60B7B57386&amp;index=15" rel="nofollow" >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OksC02Xqe7Q&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=35721A60B7B57386&amp;index=15</a></p>brennen on Apollo vs. Atmelbrennenurn:uuid:217727b6-9adf-b840-b42f-5b92d30e989e2009-03-24T15:48:36-06:00<p>&lt;blockquote>An &lsquo;interpreted&rsquo; program converts the program code as it is being executed, while a compiled program has been converted to machine language before execution.&lt;/blockquote><br/>
This is where the fuzzy part comes in. The way I understand it, modern languages that we&rsquo;re used to thinking of as &ldquo;interpreted&rdquo; tend to be compiled before execution, albeit to something like bytecode or a parse tree for a virtual machine / interpreter. <a href="http://www.perl.com/doc/FMTEYEWTK/comp-vs-interp.html" rel="nofollow" >This bit by Tom Christiansen</a> is old, but it&rsquo;s a useful example.<br/>
The startup costs for dynamic languages on modern PC hardware can still be noticeable, even without doing metrics. This is why stuff like <a href="http://perl.apache.org/" rel="nofollow" >mod_perl</a> and <a href="http://www.fastcgi.com/" rel="nofollow" >FastCGI</a> is a big win in the web world - you wind up doing the startup &amp; compilation phase once to serve a bunch of page requests.</p>Calif on Apollo vs. AtmelCalifurn:uuid:d5baa0bd-e69c-ad2d-93dc-9865f60313552009-03-24T15:28:48-06:00<p>Not that we&rsquo;re not thrilled with another writeup on NASA&rsquo;s Apollo computer, but what is the current Chinese moon program using?</p>GeorgeGraves on Apollo vs. AtmelGeorgeGravesurn:uuid:810bbbab-9e83-6a0c-3947-21c0ddc89daa2009-03-24T14:29:57-06:00<p>I&rsquo;m SO getting this book - thanks spark fun!</p>electronictech on Apollo vs. Atmelelectronictechurn:uuid:7da78817-b5d0-09ae-5ecf-d282734477342009-03-24T14:07:45-06:00<p>-and the line between &ldquo;compiled&rdquo; and &ldquo;interpreted&rdquo; is kind of fuzzy anyway-<br/>
An &lsquo;interpreted&rsquo; program converts the program code as it is being executed, while a compiled program has been converted to machine language before execution.<br/>
If you are dealing with low speed systems(microcontrollers) there is a big difference in performance, whereas with high speed systems(GHz PC&rsquo;s) a human can&rsquo;t comprehend the difference, unless using some sort of measurement for comparison.<br/>
Lately I&rsquo;ve been using Linux and playing around with the many open-source distributions, and I must admit &ldquo;Linux has MS whipped when it comes to performance&rdquo;. Not only that, but a majority of compilers(whose code is portable) are free.</p>brennen on Apollo vs. Atmelbrennenurn:uuid:e66fbdef-d817-08e7-343e-d813a4517b582009-03-24T12:03:18-06:00<p>On a related note, I remember being kind of fascinated by <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7nl9r/they_write_the_right_stuff_how_nasa_writes/" rel="nofollow" >this Fast Company piece</a> about writing code for the shuttle, along with some of the <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7nl9r/they_write_the_right_stuff_how_nasa_writes/" rel="nofollow" >programming reddit discussion</a>.</p>brennen on Apollo vs. Atmelbrennenurn:uuid:db2da584-4f2f-d043-c446-2337db8104aa2009-03-24T11:47:41-06:00<p>I might have to borrow &ldquo;optimizate&rdquo;.<br/>
This is an old, old argument, of course. Presumably at least as old as assembly languages, or anything much more abstract than moving wires or toggling switches by hand. Folks posting here generally work in the embedded space, so the priorities and parameters are quite a bit different from the ones I deal with on a day-to-day basis, but I think I can summarize the counterpoint as &ldquo;have fun writing that web application in x86 assembly."<br/>
Cycles are cheap. Programmers aren&rsquo;t.<br/>
(Of course, most desktop applications are still written in C, C++, or a related compiled language, and the line between "compiled&rdquo; and &ldquo;interpreted&rdquo; is kind of fuzzy anyway - are Perl and Python &ldquo;interpreted&rdquo;? How about Java or .NET?)</p>gzaloprgm on Apollo vs. Atmelgzaloprgmurn:uuid:e84024a0-e3b8-6dd4-a44d-0be7bea19ff12009-03-24T11:09:38-06:00<p>I agree with joepierson. Nowadays, everything needs faster and faster processors. What for? I believe they do that to avoid having to optimizate the code. I think that if everyone programmed in x86 Assembly, or even C or C++, instead of in high level interpreted languages, applications would be a loooot faster and clearly they wouldn&rsquo;t need a lot of memory.</p>joepierson on Apollo vs. Atmeljoepiersonurn:uuid:d0edf8c8-74fe-f3e3-d3fe-6fb7e4be701c2009-03-24T10:41:10-06:00<p>just shows you just how little processing power you actual need to GET THINGS DONE<br/>
sometimes I think my 3Ghz PC is slower then my 16Mhz 80386 I used in the 90&rsquo;s at getting jobs done, my word procesor was faster, my DOS based layout CAD software was infinitely faster that what I use today</p>Alf2 on Apollo vs. AtmelAlf2urn:uuid:f7b6779b-9818-3ade-730c-8989975d2e692009-03-24T06:44:38-06:00<p>Very good blog!!!it&rsquo;s amazing&hellip;you went to the moon and return with only a few mips&hellip; that is a real adventure, the biggest one!! I admire you!!!</p>MichaelC on Apollo vs. AtmelMichaelCurn:uuid:5a115f0d-8f00-5204-7892-04dcca92b40a2009-03-24T03:38:38-06:00<p>Although &ldquo;it never failed in flight&rdquo; is right in the sense that it didn&rsquo;t have a hardware failure, it did suffer a software related failure during the first moon landing. There was a series of memory overflow errors and the computer had to be restarted even in the late stages of the landing, which it coped with well. There&rsquo;s lots of information about this event on the net - for example: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm" rel="nofollow" >http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm</a>.</p>Tim on Apollo vs. AtmelTimurn:uuid:018b0b7c-1eb7-a29f-b2ce-9ffe855438192009-03-24T01:18:26-06:00<p>if you think that&rsquo;s amazing, how about building your own flight computer&hellip;in your basement<br/>
<a href="http://www.galaxiki.org/web/main/_blog/all/build-your-own-nasa-apollo-landing-computer-no-kidding.shtml" rel="nofollow" >http://www.galaxiki.org/web/main/_blog/all/build-your-own-nasa-apollo-landing-computer-no-kidding.shtml</a></p>